Redskins Forever

“

What does this have to do with the First Amendment?  President Barack Obama says he would "think about changing" the Washington Redskins' name if The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.  Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr..; Schenck v. United States1919 he owned the football team as he waded into the controversy involving a word many consider offensive to Native Americans. Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place. I occasionally make an effort, especially after Sunday Mass, to love my enemies, but when it comes to Clownbama I'd   have to masquerade as the village idiot.  I really do see Obama as a psycho who HAS invaded my home, and at gun-point  forced us to hand over our titles of deed and wealth—and then— for good measure,  raped my wife and children (3 boys and a girl all), and on the way out reminded us- "I won the election." So, you see,  it's impossible;  but I do what I can.  In this Redskins case, I have just two words.  First Amendment.  I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire The United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, seems to be the genesis for what have become outrages against  First Amendment,  like "Hate Speech" laws.   I would argue that the court was wrong in 1919,  because it involved  the distribution of  flyers opposing the draft during World War I.  Clear and Present Danger?  I don't think so; I see free speech.  Plus, note that Holmes expressed the caveat "falsely" shouting fire in a theater ... . Anyway, Liberals have latched onto  that "Fire in the Theater" euphemism to enact "Hate Speech decided by whom?" laws.    The dangers are  obvious, and inherent.  At the heart of the professional anti-Redsikin rabble's argument  is a suggestion that calling a team  The Redskins is as offensive as calling them The Niggers.  I hardly see the social parallel, but that's no never mind.  I have a First Amendment right to call anybody, anything,  that does not infer libel or slander, whether it upsets you or not.   Voltaire's "..I'll defend your right to say it  ... "  was ubiquitously taught  when I was schooled, but now?   If enough people feel the same way about The Redskins as do the savage left, they can call them the Reds, or any g'damn thing they like.  But ban Redskins legally?  What Voltaire said. Sheesh! STFU Barry.

”